Question On Notice No. 6231 asked in the Legislative Council on 16 October 2012 by Hon Lynn Maclaren
Question Directed to the: Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Planning
Parliament: 38 Session: 1
Question
I refer to the letter, dated 26 April 2012, (the Letter) from the Minister for Planning to Hon Brian Ellis MLC regarding Petition 131 – Cement and Lime Manufacturing, Nowergup, and ask —
(1) With reference to the statement in the Letter 'The SPP 2.4 supporting mapping was compiled using Local Government approved Extractive Industry Licences ', is the Minister aware that Lime Industries Pty Limited, the owner of Lot 52 Nowergup Rd, has never held an approval for any activity including extractive industry for this site?
(2) On what basis was this site identified in the current SPP2.4?
(3) In identifying this site in the current SPP2.4, was consideration given to the fact that there are a number residents living well within the minimum 300 metres buffer separation distance required by the Environmental Protection Authority Guidance No 3 Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses.
(4) If yes to (3), please give details?
(5) If no to (3), why not?
(6) Could the Minister please explain —
(a) what 'new GIS based environment information' will be used in the approvals process; and
(b) how this 'new GIS based information' will be used in the approvals process?
(7) What does 'revised agency referrals' mean (page 2, paragraph 1 of the Letter) and how will they replace the role of the Environmental and Conservation Reference Charts (ECRC) in the approvals process?
(8) When will the revised SPP2.4 be released for public comment and how long will the proposed public consultation period be?
(9) What agencies have contributed to the review of SPP 2.4?
(10) Has the Chamber of Commerce contributed to the review and how?
(11) Has there been as part of the review a cost/benefit analysis of the potential environmental cost to the designation of Basic Raw Material supplies?
(12) If yes to (11), what are the findings of that analysis?
(13) If no to (11), will such an analysis be carried out?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Has there been, as part of the review, a cost benefit analysis of the potential economic cost and opportunity cost of the designation of Basic Raw Material status over the Nowergup/Carabooda area which has been identified in the Future of East Wanneroo 2007 by the Western Australian Planning Commission as being suitable for rural subdivision and landscape protection?
(16) If yes to (15), what are the findings of that analysis?
(17) If no to (15), will such an analysis be carried out?
(18) If no to (17), why not?
Answered on 13 November 2012
(1)-(2) As the remainder of the paragraph quoted states, information was also collected on mining tenements and from industry sources including the Chamber of Commerce. SPP 2.4 supporting maps were compiled showing the existing extraction sites and land identified as Resources, Key Extraction Areas and Priority Resource Locations. The subject site is identified as a Priority Resource Location, which is defined as "Known areas of high resource potential which should be held available for current and future extraction", on the Resource Protection Working Plans of Perth Metropolitan Region and Outer Areas 2002.
(3) EPA Guidance Statement No 3 - Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses was released on 27 June 2005, after the SPP 2.4 mapping was produced.
(4) Not applicable
(5) Refer to answer (3) above.
(6) (a) The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) use newer GIS based environmental mapping and information than was available in 2002 to assess current extractive industry approvals. This new information is now presented in a common GIS format to allow cross agency use and is available in layers, which allow interrogation of specific environmental issues to a finer detail than previously available using tools such as the Environmental and Conservation Reference Charts.
(b) The State Government is currently conducting a Strategic Assessment of Perth- Peel process to align State and Federal environmental approvals for future land use. The process is using GIS cadastre based mapping for the assessment process and all relevant State and Federal environmental issues are being included. At the end of the process it is intended that the assessment will allow a resolution of environmental and development land use conflicts, including Basic Raw Materials (BRM), and future land uses refined to provide greater certainty to the development industry and conservation of significant environmental assets.
(7) There is a more defined environmental referral and approval process in place now than existed in 2000. The environmental approval process covers a wider range of issues than the out-dated Environmental and Conservation Charts. The charts were designed to provide a trigger to look at environmental issues in possible extraction areas. One generic Reference Area No 3.4 covers the entire Neerabup-Carabooda BRM area on the Resource Protection Working Plans of Perth Metropolitan Region and Outer Areas 2002. The Environmental and Conservations reference charts only cover five issues being EPP Wetland, Bush Forever, Priority Water Resource Area, Conservation Estate and Regional Parks. Modern GIS based environmental tools have layers relating to a range of State and Commonwealth flora and fauna issues and in much greater detail.
(8) The review of SPP 2.4 BRM has been brought under the Strategic Assessment Perth - Peel process managed by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It is expected the first draft of the assessment will be completed by mid 2013. Once the assessment process is finalised and future significant geological supplies of BRM have been refined through the process this mapping will be incorporated into the review of SPP 2.4. The review cannot be completed in isolation of the Strategic Assessment process to ensure consistency and certainty in outcomes. Once the review of SPP 2.4 is completed and endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission it will be released by the Minister for Planning for the statutory public consultation period of a minimum of 60 days as set out in section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.
(9) The DEC and the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) have contributed to earlier SPP 2.4 review work. It is expected that these agencies will provide further comment during the review process and that other agencies including the EPA, the Department of Transport, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Housing and the Department of Regional Development and Lands will contribute to the final review.
(10) Information from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry's (CCI) Basic Raw Material Access and Availability 1996-2008 report dated December 2007 has been incorporated in the earlier review work. Briefings have been provided to the Quarry Institute of WA and Cement, Concrete and Aggregates Australia (CCAA), which include CCI members, on new geological mapping products developed in conjunction with the DMP as part of the SPP review. The CCI's BRM advocacy role has been devolved to CCAA.
(11) No
(12) Not applicable
(13) Not a planned activity.
(14) The Strategic Assessment Perth Peel process has been agreed with the Commonwealth as the nominated method to balance competing social, economic and environmental demands on land use planning in the Perth Peel area and will align future State and Commonwealth environmental approvals.
(15) No. The results of the Strategic Assessment Perth Peel process may change the outcomes of the Future of East Wanneroo 2007 report.
(16) Not applicable
(17) -(18) Refer to answer (14) above.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on http://www.rtlib.com